Ukraine

[Ag3ma]

Isn't it? It's a slower zerging than originally planned but still, it's a relentless advance. Even if the proportionnal costs are high on the russian side, they have overwhelming resources and no loss in them as their territory is unaffected.

I'd agree that Russia is winning currently, if only on a "possession is nine-tenths of the law" basis that it's occupying a huge amount of Ukrainian territory. But it does have finite resources: it cannot replace much of its best equipment at the rate it is being lost, it evidently has ammunition supply limitations, and more mobilisations and casualties may start testing its population's patience.

The interesting point will come with Ukraine's apparently incoming offensive. If this were a success and recovers another large chunk of territory (e.g. most of one of its occupied oblasts), Russia will be in a very difficult position: it would suggest that Russia cannot expect to hold those remaining provinces because its military isn't up to scratch. It might have huge amounts of manpower, but if it can't train and equip them properly, they're just casualties waiting to happen.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, we need to define victory here. Russia's ruined its international reputation, wrecked it's military, done interesting things to its economy. Even if it gets to keep some bits of Ukranian its bombed to pieces, not much of a gain there.

 

[Dalisclock]

Isn't it? It's a slower zerging than originally planned but still, it's a relentless advance. Even if the proportionnal costs are high on the russian side, they have overwhelming resources and no loss in them as their territory is unaffected.

Russia is steadily winning their war. I feel the west only makes sure it comes at the highest possible cost (for everyone, in practice) but, for various good and bad reasons, stops short of preventing it.

If Russia is winning by defining winning as "Inflicting intense pain and suffering on Ukraine" then yes, they're winning.

At the same time, these wins are at the cost of burning through men, ammunition and equipment at a very high(and unsustainable) rate, losing a flagship in an extremely embarrassing incident, NATO not only rallying but expanding and offensives that count progress in streets and destroyed buildings. Not to mention damage to the Russian economy which they insist is minimal yet they stopped releasing key economic data for COMPLETELY UNRELATED REASONS.

Russia has very likely lost the European Energy Market for a decade at the very least and while India and China are buying, they're buying on thier terms, which means discount sales.....and that doesn't help Russia very much especially with it being a vital revenue stream. China seems like it's trying to buddy up to Russia, sure, but again, Xi knows he can dictate terms here because Putin has few other options. I would not be shocked if China demands collateral for Russian debts....such as Siberia and the Russian Far East.

So if you pick a very specific metric as "Winning" and focus on that, then sure, they're winning.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'd agree that Russia is winning currently, if only on a "possession is nine-tenths of the law" basis that it's occupying a huge amount of Ukrainian territory. But it does have finite resources: it cannot replace much of its best equipment at the rate it is being lost, it evidently has ammunition supply limitations, and more mobilisations and casualties may start testing its population's patience.

The interesting point will come with Ukraine's apparently incoming offensive. If this were a success and recovers another large chunk of territory (e.g. most of one of its occupied oblasts), Russia will be in a very difficult position: it would suggest that Russia cannot expect to hold those remaining provinces because its military isn't up to scratch. It might have huge amounts of manpower, but if it can't train and equip them properly, they're just casualties waiting to happen.

Not to mention while Russia will never run out of people to send, every person they send to be killed or maimed in Bahkmut is a person not contributing to the Russian economy anymore, nor is that person likely to breed, which is kind of a problem in a nation which apparently is facing a demographic collapse in over the next few decades( unless they're gonna tell grandma to do her patriotic duty and pump out 10 kids to save Russian Culture).

It's not something that hurts right now, but it's damage that will become more apparent over time

 

[Ag3ma]

China seems like it's trying to buddy up to Russia, sure, but again, Xi knows he can dictate terms here because Putin has few other options. I would not be shocked if China demands collateral for Russian debts....such as Siberia and the Russian Far East.

I doubt China is planning on adding territory - Russia is unlikely to give anything up as a point of national pride, and taking it by force would probably be too damaging for China's reputation. But China probably will end up basically owning Russia as its own private natural resources mine just through economic dominance.

( unless they're gonna tell grandma to do her patriotic duty and pump out 10 kids to save Russian Culture).

They already tried that and failed. I can't see it working on a second try.

Although they have the possibility of adding about 5 million ex-Ukrainians (also with very low birth rate) which will hide the population decline a little longer.

 

[Dalisclock]

Discussion of the upcoming Counteroffensive including the pentagon leaks.

 

[Silvanus]

25 more cruise missiles fired overnight, mostly at Kyiv. 23 shot down. No casualties for once.

 

[Thaluikhain]

25 more cruise missiles fired overnight, mostly at Kyiv. 23 shot down. No casualties for once.

23 out of 25? That's good air defence and/or Russia should be firing them somewhere else.

 

[Hawki]

I'm no military expert, but everything I've read has indicated that bombing civilians in war tends to harden, not weaken resolve. It's arguably counter-productive to the attacker in that you're incidentally improving the enemy's morale, and expending munitions while you're at it. The Blitz is a classic example.

But sure, Russia. You do you...

 

[Ag3ma]

I'm no military expert, but everything I've read has indicated that bombing civilians in war tends to harden, not weaken resolve. It's arguably counter-productive to the attacker in that you're incidentally improving the enemy's morale, and expending munitions while you're at it. The Blitz is a classic example.

But sure, Russia. You do you...

I guess hope springs eternal, that maybe it'll be different for them.

But I suspect a fair chunk of it is just malice: punitiveness for the sake of vindictiveness, enjoying inflicting pain and damage because it makes them feel powerful, wrecking what they can't have. The rest of it is simply lacking having anything better to do because they can't accomplish goals on the battlefield.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm no military expert, but everything I've read has indicated that bombing civilians in war tends to harden, not weaken resolve. It's arguably counter-productive to the attacker in that you're incidentally improving the enemy's morale, and expending munitions while you're at it. The Blitz is a classic example.

But sure, Russia. You do you...

In this case, yes, in a more general case, if the targets are the enemy industry, and there just happens to be civilians there (or, well, the workers are part of the industry), then it can be viable.

Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, especially when you are just killing enough to get headlines made about how evil you are, and not enough to make those statistics matter in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't work. Though, people do seem to keep thinking it might work. Not just the ones doing it, which could be a justification, those on the receiving end sometimes worry it'll break their morale, but yeah, tends not to.

 

[Dalisclock]

In this case, yes, in a more general case, if the targets are the enemy industry, and there just happens to be civilians there (or, well, the workers are part of the industry), then it can be viable.

Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, especially when you are just killing enough to get headlines made about how evil you are, and not enough to make those statistics matter in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't work. Though, people do seem to keep thinking it might work. Not just the ones doing it, which could be a justification, those on the receiving end sometimes worry it'll break their morale, but yeah, tends not to.

Between this and the war crimes Russia is committing, Ukraine has very little incentive to accept anything less then total eviction of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Especially since Russia seems to want to prove it's guarantees are worthless.

 

[Silvanus]

I guess hope springs eternal, that maybe it'll be different for them.

But I suspect a fair chunk of it is just malice: punitiveness for the sake of vindictiveness, enjoying inflicting pain and damage because it makes them feel powerful, wrecking what they can't have. The rest of it is simply lacking having anything better to do because they can't accomplish goals on the battlefield.

There's also the hope that Ukraine's western backers start to believe that conceding territory to end the war is the humanitarian choice.

Of course, after we've seen what happens to people when they live under Russian occupation, we can be sure it isn't. But of course, they didn't expect to lose the territory they gained and for things like Bucha to come to light.

 

[meiam]

I think civilian bombing is more a case of poor intelligence (both poor knowledge of the enemy position and not being very smart). Russian army officer need to show they're doing something in the war, but they probably have no idea where the militarily important targets are, so they just shoot at civilian infrastructure, since their location are public, and this way they can say they did something.

The "smart" thing to do would be to hold back reserve until firm knowledge of the enemy important position are, and then blast away in the hope of scoring serious military achievements. But that would involve essentially doing nothing for long period of time, whhich would probably look bad, both to superior and to the more militant element of the public.

The only justification I could see for it would be to force the Ukranian army to deploy their limited interception capacity to protect un important (from a military point of view) civilian infrastructure to then hit the military structure that would now be poorly defended. Especially if missile interception capacity can be used to intercept aircraft (no idea if that's possible) so you would force those systems to be deployed away from the battlefield and then could send the much more valuable airplane knowing they'll be safer. But that doesn't seem to be what they're doing.

 

[Ag3ma]

There's also the hope that Ukraine's western backers start to believe that conceding territory to end the war is the humanitarian choice.

Sure as shit Russia's western backers don't think Russia should concede Ukrainian territory back to Ukraine as the humanitarian choice.

 

[Dalisclock]

More Counteroffensive speculation

 

[Ag3ma]

More Counteroffensive speculation

Interesting one. My (inexpect) take is that a strike through Zaporizhzhia oblast to the Black Sea coast is high risk high reward: if it succeeds and cuts off Crimea and Kherson, I am not sure Russia can supply its troops outside Crimea adequately so Ukraine takes everything bar Crimea. However, it also extends Ukraine's forces a lot with an obvious salient that can be attacked on two sides, so if Russia can mount an effective counterattack, Ukraine might end up with part of its forces trapped. Where along that front it attacks leaves lots of options.

Kherson oblast is then the next obvious choice - just try to push Russia back and then roll as far east as possible.

It's not in a place to invade Crimea even with a successful offensive - would have to take a pause and establish supply lines first.

I don't consider Donetsk or Luhansk likely. Probably much tougher targets, better defended and easier for Russia as much closer to its logistics.

 

[Dalisclock]

Interesting one. My (inexpect) take is that a strike through Zaporizhzhia oblast to the Black Sea coast is high risk high reward: if it succeeds and cuts off Crimea and Kherson, I am not sure Russia can supply its troops outside Crimea adequately so Ukraine takes everything bar Crimea. However, it also extends Ukraine's forces a lot with an obvious salient that can be attacked on two sides, so if Russia can mount an effective counterattack, Ukraine might end up with part of its forces trapped. Where along that front it attacks leaves lots of options.

Kherson oblast is then the next obvious choice - just try to push Russia back and then roll as far east as possible.

It's not in a place to invade Crimea even with a successful offensive - would have to take a pause and establish supply lines first.

I don't consider Donetsk or Luhansk likely. Probably much tougher targets, better defended and easier for Russia as much closer to its logistics.

I honestly think Crimea will be the last major battle of this war if Ukraine retains the initiative, however, the UAF will probably isolate and siege it before they attempt a direct assault, by cutting the road on the landward side and blowing the kerch bridge to isolate on the side facing Russia. Without logistics to Crimea and within range to bombard it, Ukraine can soften it up for a bit before going in for a direct assault, and more important, deny it's use to the black sea fleet.

At least that's how I'd handle it in their shoes.

Edit: Another idea, strike down to the coast and, secure the eastern flank of the advance once UAF forces reach the sea, then begin pushing down through Kherson and west from Melitopol force Russian forces defending the Kherson region to defend both their eastern and Northern Flanks, which then relieves pressure on the forces moving south from Kherson. Once the two link up, continue rolling west to completely cut off Crimea and isolation the remaining Russian forces in that part of Ukraine.

Done successfully, Crimea is now blocked on the landward side and Metitopol is now the new frontline in the southeast, which means the UAF no longer has to worry about the Dnipro as a barrier to further advances on that region. It also has the advantage that the Russians can only supply area South of Kherson via Crimea, which is still constrained by the kerch bridge.

 

[Ag3ma]

I honestly think Crimea will be the last major battle of this war if Ukraine retains the initiative, however, the UAF will probably isolate and siege it before they attempt a direct assault, by cutting the road on the landward side and blowing the kerch bridge to isolate on the side facing Russia. Without logistics to Crimea and within range to bombard it, Ukraine can soften it up for a bit before going in for a direct assault, and more important, deny it's use to the black sea fleet.

At least that's how I'd handle it in their shoes.

As another idea, what if Ukraine decides to stragically concede Crimea in the long-run, and instead of retaking the Donbas, retakes Crimea and then offers to trade it back for peace and the Donbas? The Crimean population is ~70% Russian: Crimea is potentially more of a hindrance to Ukrainian stability than it is a strategic advantage.

 

[Dalisclock]

As another idea, what if Ukraine decides to stragically concede Crimea in the long-run, and instead of retaking the Donbas, retakes Crimea and then offers to trade it back for peace and the Donbas? The Crimean population is ~70% Russian: Crimea is potentially more of a hindrance to Ukrainian stability than it is a strategic advantage.

An interesting idea for sure. Depends a lot on how things play out if that's even an option.